Bug 436588

Summary: Package install count incorrect in anaconda install
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Bruno Wolff III <bruno>
Component: anacondaAssignee: Anaconda Maintenance Team <anaconda-maint-list>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: rawhideCC: dcantrell
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-04-08 23:14:45 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 235706    

Description Bruno Wolff III 2008-03-07 23:17:33 EST
Description of problem:
While doing a graphical install of Fedora Rawhide (from March 7 am) I noticed
that I ended up installing 4929 out of 4927 (!) packages. One of the last couple
of packages was part of emacs.
I brought this up on the fedora test list and Seth Vidal said he thought he knew
what the problem was and asked me to file a bug verus anaconda.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
The version in the packages was anaconda-, but I am not sure if
that was what was in the initrd.img (netinst.iso didn't work so I used grub to
boot from vmlinuz and initrd.imf from the isolinux directory).

How reproducible:
I only did it once.

Steps to Reproduce:
Actual results:
The cound of packages installed was off by 2.

Expected results:
The packages actually installed matching the number announced as expected.

Additional info:

This is from an email message on the fedora test list:
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 19:34 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 18:24:58 -0500,
>   seth vidal <skvidal@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 17:04 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > While doing an install of today's rawhide I ended up having 4929 out of
> > > packages installed. It isn't a big deal, but does seem odd.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Did you install using anaconda or was this an upgrade via yum?
> It was an anaconda install I got into by having grub point to a copy
> of vmlinuz and initrd.img from the isolinux directory (because netinst.iso
> was broken today) on x86_64. It was a graphic install with a custom
> file system layout and "customize now". I was anxiously waiting for it
> to finish so I was a bit surprised when it kept going after reaching 4927.
> One of the last two things had "emacs" in its name.
> The boot failed afterwards, but I think that was due to a mkinitrd regression.

okay - I know what that was and It is easy to fix. File this one in
anaconda - I think it is anaconda's transaction callback getting
confused due to the %posttrans call in the emacs package.

Comment 1 Jeremy Katz 2008-03-10 13:56:54 EDT
Seth -- do we end up getting the rpm callback with RPMCALLBACK_INST_CLOSE_FILE
again on posttrans?
Comment 2 Seth Vidal 2008-03-10 14:13:34 EDT
yep. Those should be handled correctly on yum 3.2.11 and above, though.

Comment 3 Jesse Keating 2008-04-03 16:01:39 EDT
Hrm, I seem to recall still seeing the wrong count very recently, in the last
couple days.  Could it be that this isn't fixed then?
Comment 4 Chris Lumens 2008-04-03 17:22:35 EDT
Yeah this is still broken.
Comment 5 Jeremy Katz 2008-04-03 17:56:54 EDT
Brute force hack for this committed in my tree
Comment 6 Jesse Keating 2008-04-08 23:14:45 EDT
Confirmed fixed.